Your Home Partners v. Kellichan
Sheriffdom of Tayside · Jan 19, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the First-tier Tribunal has exclusive competence over rent arrears arising from private residential tenancies. The court issued a warning regarding the claimant's reckless use of AI-generated legal research, which produced fabricated statutes and case law, though it declined to initiate formal contempt proceedings.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Claimant lodged extract purporting to be 'Small Claims (Scotland) Rules – Section 41a' which does not exist; court determined the rule was fabricated. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Claimant lodged extract purporting to be 'Interest on Debts (Scotland) Act 1985 – Section 1' which does not exist; court determined the statute/extract was fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited FtT determination reference FTS/HPC/CV/19/3145; court and FtT found no such decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited FtT determination reference FTS/HPC/CV/20/0624; court and FtT found no such decision exists.
- Why it matters now
- Fabricated statutes are now appearing alongside fake cases—verify the existence of the statute section, not just the case number.
Why this matter is tracked
In a simple procedure claim for rent arrears, the pro se claimant submitted fabricated legal authorities to support their argument that the Sheriff Court, rather than the First-tier Tribunal (FtT), held jurisdiction over a terminated tenancy. The claimant relied on non-existent sections of the 'Small Claims (Scotland) Rules' and the 'Interest on Debts (Scotland) Act 1985,' as well as fabricated FtT case references. The Sheriff determined that the FtT held exclusive jurisdiction over civil proceedings arising from private residential tenancies, regardless of whether the tenancy had ended. While the court noted the claimant's reliance on AI-generated research was reckless and had the potential to obstruct justice, it declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the claimant acted in good faith and withdrew the references.
Fabricated statutes are now appearing alongside fake cases—verify the existence of the statute section, not just the case number.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The claimant admitted to using online Artificial Intelligence.
Simple procedure claim for rent arrears dismissed by the Sheriff Court for lack of jurisdiction.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Claimant lodged extract purporting to be 'Small Claims (Scotland) Rules – Section 41a' which does not exist; court determined the rule was fabricated.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Claimant lodged extract purporting to be 'Interest on Debts (Scotland) Act 1985 – Section 1' which does not exist; court determined the statute/extract was fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited FtT determination reference FTS/HPC/CV/19/3145; court and FtT found no such decision exists.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Claimant cited FtT determination reference FTS/HPC/CV/20/0624; court and FtT found no such decision exists.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Your Home Partners v. Kellichan?
- The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the First-tier Tribunal has exclusive competence over rent arrears arising from private residential tenancies. The court issued a warning regarding the claimant's reckless use of AI-generated legal research, which produced fabricated statutes and case law, though it declined to initiate formal contempt proceedings.
- Why does Your Home Partners v. Kellichan matter for legal AI risk?
- Fabricated statutes are now appearing alongside fake cases—verify the existence of the statute section, not just the case number.
- What does the public record establish about Your Home Partners v. Kellichan?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Your Home Partners v. Kellichan summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.